Sounds like a good idea until you think who's next on the list.
1) Smokers
2) Drinkers
3) "them hooligans riding murdercycles"
1) Smokers
2) Drinkers
3) "them hooligans riding murdercycles"
QC to tax antivaxxers
- Thread starter timtune
- Start date
They are already taxed.
The first vax numbers went up when it was announced.
AllistonGT
Well-known member
Only if they start to fill up ICU's
sburns
Well-known member
The more this goes on the more our gov looks like a incompetent bunch, who literally have no ideas other then to tax us to death.
No defense on Anti-vaxxers but really taxing people isn't going to motivate this group. If anything it will play into the whole conspiracy and play up the controlling communist propaganda.
As much as I'm pro vax I am uneasy about the surtax.
The bikers, smokers, drinkers buy insurance or pay heavy taxes so not apples to apples.
Obesity is so misunderstood it could be the next target. Do they tax sugar like they tax booze?
Do all anti vaxxers have to pay or do they just send a bill to the ones that end up in ICU with C-19?
The poor have a low rate of tax so not much $$ coming in. The rich can afford it and there aren't that many of them so????
The tax puts pressure on those with anxiety issues, having to prove the hurdle. They're afraid of doctors but have to go to a doctor to prove they are afraid of doctors. The government could argue that since they went to a doctor for the exemption they really weren't afraid of doctors. Abbot and Costello could have fun with that.
The tax is a knee jerk reaction that needs a lot more thought but it seems to be working. I wouldn't be surprised that when (Hopefully) the pandemic is fully under control there will be challenges and the tax and its defense will cost will have a negative sign with regards to income.
The problem is leadership. How many would volunteer to storm the beaches of Normandy if Turdeau or Ford were leading the attack?
It always worked in the past. They got the money didn't they?
That's a hard one because obesity tends to affect the poor more since they don't have the time or money to afford and prepare healthy meals and eating fast food is the quicker and easier choice for them.
Taxing the poor just exacerbates their situation.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
This is a tough one, how do you distinguish between those who consume normally and those who over-indulge? Snack type and packaged convenience foods are already taxed with a few exceptions (breakfast cerial), raw foods are not. Sso I think they are already getting their tax piece from those preferring factory prepared foods.
Newfoundland might have a good idea, they announced a tax coming on sugary drinks -- $0.20/l starting sometime this year.
New studies show that diet drinks actually increase appetite and weight gain:
Diet soda may prompt food cravings, especially in women and people with obesity
New research adds to growing concern over zero-calorie drinks. Consuming artificial sweeteners may confuse our body, leading to increased hunger and weight gain.
www.npr.org
But if the goal is to eventually increase the taxes on everything, then this is a good start, I guess.
The more I think about it, the more I think this was an idle threat. Government doesn't want to get flattened in court nor do they want to pay out the inevitable lawsuits that they lose for "forced" injection. Legault bluffed, many people got vaccinated, job done.
As much as we all went to go back to before, sadly that's not really an option. Many people against vaccines have just checked out on reality and want to resume life as it was before. Sadly, just because you want to ignore a pandemic, that doesn't mean it goes away.
So smokers can sue the government for "forcing" them to quit via taxing them?
They'd have a lot harder time winning but anyone can sue for anything. I think the argument chain of I couldnt afford the tax so I had to get vaccinated, therefore forced vaccination contrary to the charter is orders of magnitude stronger. Not everyone could win that one, but there will be more than a few destitute that use that argument to win the lottery.
20???? Wow. I remeber the old days when I had to go to school and there was only 30 of us in the class.
ifiddles
Well-known member
@FullMotoJacket that's for grades 1-3...I can go to 23 but the average is 20...in kindergarten they're usually closer to 28-30 with 2 adults (teacher and dece)...in grades 4-8 they're usually around 28, however, I've seen them as high as 36...
In times past being portly was a sign of prosperity as it implied money for food. The poor were scrawney. Now the poor often go for starch and can't afford health clubs, work long hours so even a walk for exercise is out.
An economical diet doesn't have to include loads of starch but it requires thinking outside the box. Thinking is heavily frowned on today.
If you watch enough TV homeless clips you will see families living in a car and all meals are burger combos. Groceries are cheaper but one needs a place to cook. If they even had a half a brain and were trained to use it it could bump themselves into a better life.
Last edited:
